Notes from AAC Learning Network: Spelling as a Means of Communication, Part 1

In October 2024, we presented part one of “Thoughtful Inquiry: Spelling for Communication”. We chose this provocative title with absolute intention. We knew this would be a dense and difficult topic to cover.

We were, and are still, committed to having an open dialogue about how best to support non-speaking AAC users who may use spelling for communication. We want to follow up with a few summarizing statements and review some of the themes presented:

1. We strongly believe that SLPs need to be able to talk about the topic of learning to spell as a communication method. Parents are talking to each other. Dismissing the conversation jeopardizes the relationships we must forge to work together.
2. “Spelling for communication” or “spelling as communication” refers to the use of generative literacy skills as a primary form of augmentative/alternative communication (AAC). This may have different forms: writing, typing, keyboarding, partner-assisted scanning, use of an alternative pencil such as an eye gaze frame, alphabet flip chart, alphabet board/letterboard, etc. We are NOT referring to a specific method, intervention, or program.
3. Learning about EBP (Evidence-Based Practice) helps us make decisions. There are four types of “evidence”. External “lab-based” evidence is only one of four considerations when supporting non-speaking AAC users.
4. Some people with Autism have learned to use spelling for communication through the techniques of Facilitated Communication (FC), Spelling 2 Communicate (S2C), Rapid Prompting Method (RPM), and Spellers Method. These programs or techniques are considered lacking in the required evidence by such organizations as the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA), among others.
5. Yet it is undeniable that hundreds of non-speaking Autistics are able to spell for communication independently. Not all these individuals used one of the programs listed above. Some learned to read, write, and spell for communication in other ways. For all non-speaking Autistics, how did they get to where they are now? What can we learn from them?
6. The historic view of Autism is a communication, cognitive, and behavioral disability. Are there other factors that interfere with the ability to access comprehensive literacy instruction that would result in learning how to spell? The answer to this is yes. Our four pillars of evidence show us that sensory and motor challenges are a significant part of the diagnosis of Autism.
7. In the world of AAC, we have not done enough to consider the sensory and motor involvement in our assessment and treatment programs. This is especially true for Autism due to the presumption there must be a cognitive or behavioral difference rather than a sensory-motor difference. We now know this is not true.
8. Like every person who can benefit from AAC, we need to consider their strengths and challenges so that we can correctly feature-match. That is, match an AAC system and instructional strategies to the needs and abilities of each person. We need to consider access, which includes alternative access, for Autistic people.
9. We are not looking for black-and-white answers. We want to explore the gray areas. We are committed to sharing and discussing the perspectives of all stakeholders.

If you missed this event, a recording is available. Visit the Past AAC Learning Networks page on the NWACS website for the link.

Next month, we plan to look at the topic of robust literacy instruction. We will share why access to robust literacy instruction is often not attainable. We hope to distill the best practices of literacy instruction that support our non-speaking AAC users with Autism. We will continue to listen to AAC users themselves, to hear their voices, to include them in the conversation.